Estate of Bassatt Ex Rel. Bassatt v. School District No. 1
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24673
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- In Sept. 2007 Carlos Bassatt, a student teacher at West High School (Denver), was accused by employee Maria Iams of masturbating in his car in the school parking lot; surveillance video and witness identifications were mixed. Bassatt denied the allegation.
- Principal Patrick Sanchez (Latino) placed Bassatt on administrative leave, met with him, and initially emailed that the DA declined prosecution and Bassatt could return; after consulting Labor Relations (Bart Muller) about student safety, Sanchez reconvened and terminated Bassatt’s student-teaching placement.
- Bassatt filed state discrimination/retaliation charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC); an ALJ ruled against him, the CCRC reversed on retaliation (Final Order I), the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the prima facie finding but remanded the ultimate retaliation question, and on remand the CCRC issued Final Order II finding pretext/retaliation (Final Order II was never reviewed by a state court).
- Bassatt filed a federal suit alleging Title VII retaliation and § 1981/§ 1983 claims; he died during litigation and his estate pursued the claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the District, concluding the Estate failed to show pretext; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the District offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (protecting student safety) and the Estate did not raise a triable issue of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Estate produced sufficient evidence of pretext for Title VII retaliation | Bassatt asserts Sanchez’s stated reason (safety/credibility of accuser) was pretext: inadequate investigation, discrepancies in accuser’s account, and persuasive weight of CCRC Final Order II | District argues it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (alleged sexual misconduct); Sanchez honestly believed accuser after interviewing witnesses and weighing student safety; Final Order II unreviewed and not binding | Court affirmed summary judgment for District: Estate failed to show pretext; Sanchez’s belief in accuser was honestly held and Final Order II is not binding or persuasive |
| Whether federal court must give preclusive effect to CCRC Final Order II | Estate: Final Order II showing pretext should be given persuasive (or preclusive) weight | District: Only state-court-reviewed administrative determinations have preclusive effect; unreviewed agency orders are not binding | Court: Not bound by Final Order II because it lacked state-court review; district court permissibly gave it no binding or persuasive effect |
| Whether burden on pretext at summary judgment was improperly assigned to Estate | Estate: District court shifted burden improperly to plaintiff to disprove misconduct | District: In employment-misconduct cases, plaintiff must produce evidence rebutting employer’s misconduct justification to avoid summary judgment | Court: No error; plaintiff must show evidence undermining employer’s asserted reason to avoid summary judgment |
| Whether Bassatt had an employment contract enabling § 1981/§ 1983 claims | Estate: Student-teaching paperwork collectively created an employment contract | District: Student-teaching documents did not bind the school board or create an employment contract; student teacher was not an employee paid by District | Court: No employment contract existed; § 1981/§ 1983 claims fail independently |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986) (unreviewed state administrative proceedings are not given preclusive effect against Title VII claims)
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (state-court decisions reviewing agency determinations have preclusive effect)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (retaliation requires showing retaliatory animus or use of McDonnell Douglas approach)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed‑motives and motivating-factor analysis)
- Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) (pretext shown by demonstrating employer's reasons have such weaknesses that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence)
- Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (failure to investigate can support an inference of pretext where adverse action followed without hearing plaintiff’s side)
- Bolling v. City & Cnty. of Denver, Colo., 790 F.2d 67 (10th Cir. 1986) (federal courts must give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect as under state law)
- Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1999) (contractual relationship exists where services are rendered in exchange for wages; helps determine § 1981 applicability)